The Real Reasons James Holmes Killed 12 and Shot 72

UPDATE: We are closing comments on this one on Tuesday, July 24 at midnight.

Answering The New York Daily News where they see blood on the hands of Obama, Romney and the NRA, let me say this:

There are two reasons this happened, and it is not an abundance of guns in our society.

First Reason:

It is the errosion of values in our society. This is caused primarily because of parents not watching their kids as they grow up. Most homes with kids now have only a single parent to give the children love and affection, and to teach them the values of our society. The gaming media and the associated online culture is really a bad influence on people like James Holmes. There are no good values that come from that.

Second reason: (Updated July 27, 2012)

James Holmes did receive the Neuroscience Training Grant from The National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. He also received a $26,000 stipend for personal expenses. This according to the New York Daily News. This corrects the information The New York Times News Services issued on June 21, 2012. We considered the source reliable at the time. Whiles this is a great deal different than someone living off of unemployment, Holmes found the time to pursue planning this horrendous crime. Nobody would expect or assume that Holmes would use the knowledge of science he learned and the money he received via the stipend for this crime. Calling this a “reason” is no longer valid in our opinion.

Here is the information – in brackets – that was removed from this opinion article: {This guy was living off of the government, but still able to buy guys, sign-up for odd relationship sites and live a deviant lifestyle. Yes, courtesy of you and me, James Holmes was collecting money from unemployment and living comfortably. He was able to pursue his weird interests because he had all the time in the world on his hands.} We have more details on this update explaining it in further detail at the bottom. That is dated July 27, 2012.

Should we strip our country of all guns?

Hell no! Those of us on the right simply do not trust the leftists in our country. It is very clear that political establishment in our country on the left is moving more and more toward an early Castro like Cuba or a Hugo Chavez like Venezuela (of present day). In those countries liberties are slowly taken away, then all at once there is a single, dominant political party that dares anyone to challenge it. In Cuba is was a revolution with guns and fighting. In Venezuela it was a ballot box revolution with people “disappearing” or being violently murdered as they challenged the Chavez regime. Of course “nobody ever saw” who did the kidnappings and killings.

When the left rants on about gun control, getting certain guns from everyone, signing treaties that give away our gun rights as a country, and more, just remember that the reason we “cling to our guns” is that we do not trust those on the left. They are increasingly looking like they are wanting to turn this into Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela. On the right, we know that Obama has had some strong leanings towards Marxism that date back to 1980. We know of his associations with known terrorists radicals. We know of David Axelrod’s political leanings. We have watched Eric Holder’s justice department in action. We have watched how the Obama administration is using the IRS and enforcement form the Labor Department to go after those that donate to Romney and Republican PACS.

The Second Amendment is there because the wrong people get voted in, they choose judges that toe the party line regardless of laws, and they use dictatorial edict (like Obama) on issues where they just do not have the votes in the duly elected House and Senate. Now – we have to hope that the SCOTUS continues to protect us there.

The source of our article on James Holmes receiving unemployment insurance was The New York Times News Service. We have checked the cache of the original article on that, and the New York Times has pulled it for whatever reason. That was our source, and we have to consider that a “correction” on the part of The New York Times News Service. Several people have asked about this today, and we checked for that reason. We have updated our article, deleting such a reference.